list_resources

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

Annotations already cover readOnlyHint, openWorldHint, and idempotentHint. The description reinforces this with 'controlled read-only filters,' which is useful context, and adds the full-resource-type requirement. It does not disclose pagination, default result behavior, or the exact return format, but the safety profile is already well covered by annotations.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The description is two short sentences with no filler. The first sentence states the tool's purpose, and the second provides actionable filter guidance with a concrete example. It is front-loaded and every word earns its place.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

For a simple list tool with three optional parameters, the description covers the main object and gives guidance on the most important filter. However, there is no output schema, and the description does not explain the return shape or the semantics of limit and name_contains. It is minimally adequate but not complete for an agent that needs to invoke all parameters correctly.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate for missing parameter documentation. It only clarifies resource_type by requiring the full Azure resource type with an example; limit and name_contains remain semantically undefined. With three parameters and no schema descriptions, this is a significant gap.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description states a specific verb and resource: 'List Azure resources using controlled read-only filters.' It is clear that this tool lists Azure resources and distinguishes itself from more specific siblings like list_resource_groups or list_public_ip_resources by covering all Azure resources with a resource_type filter. It could be stronger by explicitly naming sibling overlap, but the core purpose is unambiguous.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

The description implies when to use the tool: when you need to list Azure resources with read-only filters. It gives a concrete rule about using full Azure resource types, which is useful. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use it or how it compares to the many sibling list_* tools, so an agent must infer the appropriate selection.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.